Advocating for the right of consenting adults to share and enjoy love, sex, residence, and marriage without limits on the gender, number, or relation of participants. Full marriage equality is a basic human right.

Translate

Thursday, June 30, 2016

However,
incest between consenting adults is a completely different subject,
there is no victim here, nor is there any valid reason for banning such
relationships. To anyone who suggests that legalizing incest would be
bad for society, it would be wise to ask them whether France, Spain,
Holland, Japan, China, the Russian Federation, or Rhode Island were
dealing with societal disasters as a result of incest being legal there.
Of course, those countries are NOT lying in ruins or being overrun with
predatory perverts.

Yes, we have places that are examples we can study.

The
charge that we would fundamentally change the function of the family
unit or threaten family cohesion is ridiculous. There is a vast amount
of diversity in what we call the modern family to begin with, and we are
just one small part of that diversity. There are many things which can
disrupt a family unit, most of which are perfectly legal. Take divorce
for instance, that certainly upsets the functioning and cohesion of the
family unit at least in the short term, but we don’t outlaw divorce
because of this.

"Changing the function of the family unit" and "threat to family cohesion" was what they about interracial marriage, too.

People who are, or have been, involved in consanguinamory are everywhere.

What will happen when we decriminalize and accept consanguinamory?

1. More people will be together happily without having to hide. Currently, most people in consanguinamorous relationships are at least partially closeted, causing endless problems, not just for them, but many others around them.

2. More people will cooperate with law enforcement to stop real crimes that actually have victims, and there will be less wasting of law enforcement resources on victimless crimes. There are people who are going through the criminal courts right now and others who are sitting in jail right now who are there because of their relationship with another adult. There are people who are not cooperating with law enforcement about crimes with actual victims because to cooperate would risk their own victimless "crime" being revealed to law enforcement, or because they distrust law enforcement because of these ridiculous laws against consensual (to be redundant) sex.

3. More people will get the health care they need because they can be honest with professionals, including psychiatrists, therapists, gynecologists, obstetricians, and pediatricians, among others, who would find it easier to be trained to deal with the issues involved.

4. Fewer people will cheat because they were able discuss the issues of consanguinamory and Genetic Sexual Attraction, get counseling if needed, and won’t feel pressured into turning someone into a beard without their knowledge.

A
man who fathered two children with his niece after the pair started a
sexual relationship has been jailed for four-and-a-half years.

"Started a sexual relationship" prompts me to ask why are we wasting resources prosecuting and imprisoning consenting adults for having relationships???

A court heard that the 'appalling and sad case' was revealed after a social services investigation.

The pair had been having a consensual sexual relationship, leading to the birth of two children.

"The pair had been having a consensual sexual relationship" prompts me to say that only thing appalling and sad is that anyone is interfering.

Speaking
at Hull Crown Court, East Yorkshire, Nigel Clive, prosecuting, said:
'The situation, in short, is this - Hull social services were invited to
intervene as a result of the birth of two children.'

He said DNA tests proved the link between the children and their parents, who appeared in the dock together.

Well I'd think DNA tests would prove a link between children and parents. People who make children together do tend provide their DNA, after all.

Judge
Jeremy Richardson QC said: 'The reality is, they were having an
intimate, consensual sexual relationship with each other.'

An"intimate, consensual sexual relationship" shouldn't be a crime.

David Godfrey, representing the niece, said she had already 'suffered' after losing her children to social services.

Why were the children taken? It appears so far in the article the only harm here is what is being done by the authorities.

Saturday, June 25, 2016

We're finally getting around to carefully going over Obergefell here in detail. That is the recent US Supreme Court decision on marriage.

The decision was a big win, to be sure, although in our dreams it would have done even more, instantly. Thanks to the Court majority, we are well on our way to full marriage equality. Even though the immediate effect was only to make the limited monogamous same-gender freedom to marry nationwide, they left the door wide open to bring about full marriage equality.

Before we get into the details of the decision, permit us to note that, unfortunately, there's not a single explicit mention of bisexual people, pansexual people, transgender people, or anyone other than monogamist gay people and lesbian people. While it is good that (monogamist) gays and lesbians are being affirmed, there is still much progress to make.

But the petitioners, far from seeking to devalue marriage, seek it for themselves because of their respect—and need—for its privileges and responsibilities, as illustrated by the petitioners’ own experiences.

Thursday, June 23, 2016

Longtime famous sexpert Dr. Ruth Westheimer's column addresses a subject relevant to this blog. The attention-grabbing headline invokes "incest," which headline writers appear to enjoy using. This indicates it draw attention much more than it repels.

Q: I have an uncle who recently became
widowed. I've been very fond of him since I was a child. I'm 60 and
divorced, and he's 69.

"Uncle," if not being used honorarily, can mean a parent's full-blood brother, half-brother, adopted brother, even stepbrother, or the husband of parent's full-blood sibling, half-sibling, adopted sibling, or stepsibling. It is also sometimes used of older cousins, or a parent's uncle (great uncle). Based on the ages and lack of clarification other than the mention of his divorce and knowing him since childhood (which means for well over 40 years), it is probable that this is uncle the biological sibling of the letter writer's mother or father.

My uncle and I are getting very fond of each
other. He kisses and fondles me and wants to be intimate, but I hesitate
because I feel it might be incest. I'd appreciate if you could let me
know an answer to this question, because I feel I'm weakening.

Wednesday, June 22, 2016

Some of you might be interested in this casting call for a "docu-series". As always, I urge caution in dealing with media projects, especially if your relationship with another adult puts you at risk for discrimination or even criminal charges. On the other hand, visibility can help move us forward to securing rights.

*****

Do people think your Mr. or Ms. Right is wrong for you? Do you face significant opposition in dating your significant other? Do friends, family or society oppose your relationship?

Now casting controversial couples for an all-new docu-series, Taboo Love. We are looking for couples that are determined to date the love of their life, regardless of what others think about their unorthodox relationship.

If you're in a teacher-student relationship, or if you're dating your best friend's ex, or if you are in any other relationship that has people around you raising an eyebrow and voicing their opposition, then we want to hear from you.

Saturday, June 18, 2016

For all men raising or helping to raise a child, whether you are a biological father, presumed father, grandfather, stepfather, bonus father, adoptive father, foster father or any variation… Happy Father’s Day!

A special thanks to fathers who have supported and loved their children who are LGBT, polyamorous, consanguinamorous, or have otherwise faced persecution or oppression because of who they are or the person(s) they love.

Finally, a note of encouragement to all fathers who can’t legally marry the person(s) they love, but would if they could, or who face bullying due to love or who they are: We will win so that every adult can pursue love, sex, and marriage with any consenting adults.

Oh, and if you have an especially interesting Father's Day, tell us about it.

Wednesday, June 15, 2016

Q. In love with my stepbrother: When I was 18, my
mom remarried a guy with a son my age. My stepbrother and I didn’t know
each other well back then, but after returning from college, I’ve
realized that I have a huge crush on him.

He’s single, funny, mensch-y,
smart, and very good-looking. I think he feels the same way about me,
and we totally flirt. If he weren’t my stepbrother, I would definitely
ask him out, but I see that there are infinite potential problems here.
First off, if we break up it will be insanely awkward, but it’s also
kind of weird and incestuous. (On the flip side, we’ve barely known each
other five years, so he’s not REALLY like my brother.) Prudie, please
tell me not to date my stepbrother so I don’t keep thinking about it!

As you point out, if things don’t work
out between the two of you, it will certainly complicate your family
get-togethers. That said, there’s nothing inherently wrong with your
feelings for him.

Not at all.

You’ve never lived together, you weren’t raised
together—in no way is this situation incestuous.

And why would having lived together or being raised together in any way make a dating relationship wrong? If they find they like having a romantic and/or sexual relationship, they should be free to pursue that without being harassed by anyone.

Actually, the column had more than one topic relevant to this blog...

Q. Wife wants to re-explore bisexual feelings: When
my wife and I met, we were both busy professionals who didn’t want
children. We were a great match sexually—we’re both experienced and
adventurous and very open about our paths. We became exclusively
monogamous before we married and have been so ever since. Twenty-two
years later and we still have a great life together and have sex
regularly.

Great!

But recently, my wife told me she would like to re-explore
her bisexual feelings. She said she wanted to stay married but wanted to
have relations with “any woman, at any time without recrimination or
consequences from me.” I, on the other hand, was to honor our monogamous
vows.

Oh. I wonder if he has some clear reason other than a feeling? Feelings can be enough, but other things ("I worry about STIs") can be worked through and negotiated.

I love her and I do understand that sex with me is different than sex
with a woman, but I see this as infidelity. She does not believe we
need couples counseling, as this is just about exploring something I was
aware she had done in the past. I asked whether I could think for a few
days and then give her an answer. My answer at this point is to give
her complete freedom and a divorce.

What are the real options here? He knows her feelings and she presumably knows his. His desire for strict monogamy is incompatible with her desire to also see women. I'm polyamorous myself, but I don't think either of these spouses is right or wrong. It's just a matter of what they each feel they need at this point in their life.

He said they have a "great life together." She wants to keep that going, except for the monogamy. She said, according to him, that "she would like to..." start seeing women again. That doesn't make it clear whether she is willing to defer to his desires or if she's informing him she is no longer going to be monogamous with him. If she defers to his desire for monogamy, she might be resentful. If she's going to start seeing women again, he can stay (in which case he might be resentful) or leave. He already knows what he has with her. If he leaves, there is less certainty. He might be on his own for the rest of his life (which he might like) or he might find a new woman with whom he can have a monogamous relationship. That might be even better than what he has with her, or it might not be as good. Would losing him be "worth it" to her to see other women and, if she wants, look for another man?

From the answer...

Bisexuality does not entitle a person to demand an open
marriage without warning or discussion.

She has provided warning and discussed it.

If you’re not interested in a marriage where she’s free to sleep with
any woman she likes but you’re required to be monogamous, tell her so.

I didn't see where he said that his wife was saying he had to monogamous. He's indicated that's what he wants. Or, at least, he wants the relationship to be monogamous more than he'd like to be with others.It's quite possible he's wanted to be with others but didn't want his wife to be with anyone else and he decided it was only fair that he be monogamous if he wanted his wife to be.

What can anyone say at a time like this? We cry, we scream, we shake our fists.

People should be free to go about their lives, including holding hands, hugging, and kissing in public, partying at a club, living together, marrying, and just... loving and living... without being murdered or assaulted.

We must, must, MUST ensure that love prevails over hate. Laws matter. Media matters. Education matters. Use your actions and your words to spread love, to support love.

When Season 2 of the series came to an end, Riley (Rowan
Blanchard) and Maya (Sabrina Carpenter) were no closer to sorting out
their feelings for Lucas (Peyton Meyer) and he definitely wasn’t about
to choose between them.

Fast forward to the Season 3 premiere and the group’s first day of
high school. After getting hassled by some seniors, Riley and Maya were
put on the spot to explain who they were to Lucas. “A girlfriend,” Riley
says with hesitation. “A girlfriend, equally as much,” Maya explains of
herself.

It would be really great if this was done as a serious, ongoing polyamory situation, rather than a lesson about how Lucas chooses one to the exclusion of the other, or how they both dump him (the most likely sitcom/young adult drama plotlines). These shows need to depict that not all relationships are hetero-monogamous and between a cishet guy and cishet gal of the same race, but not related. It would be great to see polyamory and it would also be great to point out that being in no romantic or sexual relationship at all is fine, too.

Monday, June 6, 2016

Jane Henderson has a report at stltoday.com taking a look at Arthur Lubow's new book "Diane Arbus." The piece has the headline "Sibling incest, WU poet discussed in upcoming Diane Arbus biography." So again, we see that consanguinamory is a subject known to catch attention.

Diane Arbus and Howard Nemerov were
two famously talented siblings and artists - she the New York
photographer and he the poet laureate and professor at Washington
University.

In Arthur Lubow's book "Diane Arbus," which goes on
sale Tuesday, he discusses the close relationship the pair had as
children and their apparent rivalry as adults. Some of the details,
however, probably won't expand either's reputations.

This is the first dig at consanguinamory.

On Pages
18-19 Lubow writes: "As Howard later acknowledged, he and his sister
experimented sexually when they were young." They liked to "play house,"
he writes.

More surprisingly, though, Arbus told her psychiatrist during her
last two years that her sexual relationship with her brother had never
ended; she went "to bed with him" in New York in 1971, a few weeks
before her death.

For some it is a lifelong romance.

"Characteristically, she referred to their
ongoing sexual liaison in an offhand way, as if there was nothing so
remarkable about it."

Clearly it was a matter of sharing affection with someone she loved. That's only "remarkable" because of absurd taboos.

Later, Lubow references the pair's sister,
Renee, and her husband, Roy, as confirmation: "Renee believe that they
were adolescent lovers, and her husband, Roy, told her he was convinced
that they continued their amorous relationship throughout their lives.
Indeed, Roy attributed Howard's worsening alcoholism to torment and
guilt over the relationship."

Guilt? How about the pressure of bigotry?

Nemerov died in 1991, leaving his
wife, Margaret, and three sons. He was one of the country's most
respected poets, having served as poet laureate from 1988-90. He won a
Pulitzer Prize and a National Book Award in 1978 and received a National
Medal for the Arts from President Ronald Reagan.

His book goes far beyond the
Nemerov's privileged upbringing on Park Avenue, of course, delving into
Arbus' controversial photos of circus performers and transvestites and
her affairs with both men and women.

Oh, the scandal.

Consanguinamorous people are everywhere; some are accomplished and awarded artists, some are scientists, some are sanitation workers, some are skilled athletes. Firefighters, police officers, teachers, accountants, investment bankers, chefs, bus drivers... some are troubled, some are relatively happy and healthy except for having to deal with hiding their love. Whenever I read of a suicide or substance abuse in someone involved in consanguinamory, I have to wonder if those problems would have been avoided if there wasn't discrimination against these lovers.

Saturday, June 4, 2016

Some people think polygamy means one man married to multiple women, but that's polygyny, just one form of polygamy. Some religious groups call that plural marriage. And some people say, suspiciously, that they only ever see polygamy expressed as one man married to multiple women. The the fact is, some cultures have practiced formalized polyandry, with one woman married to multiple men, and there are no small number of women in polyamorous relationships with two men or with a woman and a man, or with other multiple-partner configurations.

One
of the major justification of the traditional marriage is child
rearing. However, with the advent of genetic testing, there is no
confusion in parentage of a child any more. Moreover, more and more
households are either single parent, or multiple parent (50% of
marriages end up in divorce; and most of the people involved re-marry).
It is not uncommon for a child to have a mother, father as well as step
mother(s) and step father(s). I know a kid who has 6 parental units,
through multiple marriages and divorces.So, if gender is not an
issue, and "serial marriage" is OK, then why not parallel marriage? Why
can't one woman have multiple husbands? There are cultures around the
world that have historically had examples of polyandry.

Some allies responded. Some people responded with what amounted to "nobody would want to do this" which is essentially Discredited Argument #3. If nobody ends up doing it, then that still doesn't mean there was a good reason not to legalize it. If it is legalized and nobody does it, well, then, no loss, right? For example, see what Albert Arthur wrote...

There are traditionally polyandrous groups in the Indian
Himalyas - where one woman marries a group of brothers (like Draupadi
did in the Mahabharata). This *does* result in women having a more
powerful position in hill societies than they do in the plains; but the
power comes at a price. The women do an AWFUL lot of work
(unsurprisingly, if you think about it, they're 'taking care of' more
than one husband), the motivation is arguable (it's usually about
minimising division of the inheritance, since the [fewer] children are
all the brothers') and it raises the question: what happened to all the
other girl babies?

Polygamy is optional under full marriage equality. There will not be any more "extra" women or men than there are right now under our supposedly monogamous system. There will definitely be fewer people unmarried who want to be married. A woman should be free to marry a woman, or two women, even if one of those women is her sister. There is no good reason to deny full marriage equality.

Full Marriage Equality

About This Blog

I argue for marriage equality. By that I mean that society and all local, state, federal, and international laws, institutions, and programs should recognize any marriage registered by any persons without restrictions on the basis of race, color, creed, ancestry, national origin, sex, gender, sexual orientation, or religion.

The global definition of marriage should be as follows: "The uniting of consenting individuals in a witnessed ceremony."

We believe everyone has the right to share love, sex, residence, and marriage with any and all consenting adult(s) of their choice, regardless of birth or sexual orientation.

The Fine Print

The focus of this blog is consenting adults. This blog does not advocate anyone engage in activity that is currently illegal in their jurisdiction; it does advocate changing or repealing any law that prevents the freedom of association, love, and full marriage equality for adults. This blog condemns rape, sexual assault, and child molestation, and frowns in the general direction of cheating. This blog exists mainly to evaluate information and direct others to information about current events; it does not provide medical, therapeutic, legal, financial, or cooking advice. This blog links to other sites for informational purposes; it does not necessarily support everything at those links.